OzzieMandias

And rightly not, the way it's turning out. But there were always plenty of uncritical ("at least they're doing something") supporters too. Like myself, but now all i can do is laugh. Ashley couldn't have planned it better himself. Why would he want to chase away a potential buyer?

And rightly not, the way it's turning out. But there were always plenty of uncritical ("at least they're doing something") supporters too.

I'll have a go. This looks like it's based on a document from a few months ago when Ashley was trying to sell the club for £95 million. He is pointing out to potential buyers that if they take the club at that price and then get the club promoted, the club would be worth between £150m and £200m - which is probably correct. They then point out the cost-cutting measures that are there to ensure the club is financially stable during the 'promotion season', and conclude that if someone makes the purchase, the return in terms of the increased value of the club is likely to be £84 million IF we are promoted. If we don't get promoted, things are still stable. NUST have taken that figure of £84 million, divided it by 12, and concluded that Ashley is making a profit of £7 million per month. Complete rubbish. What they are not taking into account is that we have not been promoted, and Ashley has already lost £230 million on his own purchase of the club and by clearing the initial £90 million debt. You reckon "a respected company's Investment document that was used to try to raise investment to buy the Club" means Ashley? I'm not sure quite what it means, but how could it be Ashley "[raising] investment to buy the Club"? Like the rest of this missive, it sounds suspiciously like nonsense. I've got a feeling they mean the Profitable Group I take your point. It's not completely clear whether this was Ashley's view of the potential value of the club, or someone else's. The most significant fact is NUST have used this information to imply that Ashley is currently raking off large monthly profits from the club, which is clearly nonsense. Either they don't understand the information, or have decided to put that particular slant on it. Either way, it's a worry. Exactly. They're either daft or they're liars. And either way they're putting unsubstantiated rumour into a communication to potential investors. Would you trust your pension to these people?

I'll have a go. This looks like it's based on a document from a few months ago when Ashley was trying to sell the club for £95 million. He is pointing out to potential buyers that if they take the club at that price and then get the club promoted, the club would be worth between £150m and £200m - which is probably correct. They then point out the cost-cutting measures that are there to ensure the club is financially stable during the 'promotion season', and conclude that if someone makes the purchase, the return in terms of the increased value of the club is likely to be £84 million IF we are promoted. If we don't get promoted, things are still stable. NUST have taken that figure of £84 million, divided it by 12, and concluded that Ashley is making a profit of £7 million per month. Complete rubbish. What they are not taking into account is that we have not been promoted, and Ashley has already lost £230 million on his own purchase of the club and by clearing the initial £90 million debt. You reckon "a respected company's Investment document that was used to try to raise investment to buy the Club" means Ashley? I'm not sure quite what it means, but how could it be Ashley "[raising] investment to buy the Club"? Like the rest of this missive, it sounds suspiciously like nonsense.

FWIW I can't see any way that the club is making any sort of profit on a turnover of about £50m or £60m. In 2008 the club lost £20m on a turnover of £100m, how do you get from there to a profit when your income is about £40m less? Apart from that IMO it's extremely unprofessional to put unsbstantiated gossip in an email to potential investors and, for me, their credibility is shot to pieces - they have shot themselves in the foot. That and an idiotic survey full of ineptly loaded questions.

You could never guarantee anyone's security 100% ever, anywhere. Ok then shall I rephrase. They should not put in an enivronment that is currently the subject of a conflict, as was mentioned in the BBC article. Well, they were driving to Angola from their training camp in Congo-Brazzaville, through a conflict-ridden exclave of Angola. Whose fault was that? Say, there was a tournament in Scotland, and a team bus travelling from their training ground in the Republic of Ireland got attacked by terrorists in conflict-ridden Northern Ireland. Would that be a reason to cancel any tournament held in Europe? games are being held in that conflict ridden region i believe whos fault is that? They are? That detail escaped me. I thought they were just passing through. Angola's fault, then, I suppose. OTOH, teams had been told by the CAF to fly, not travel overland -- a stipulation that the Togo team ignored. They weren't told to fly, the CAF merely "expected" them to fly. Oh yeah? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article6981351.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/08/togo-football-team-ambushed-angola So they deserved to be shot at and their driver killed? Christ man, just because they chose to go by bus, doesn't mean they're to blame for what happened. The issue was about whether security measures could have prevented this happening. I'd say such measures as were supposed to be in place would have stood a better chance if they hadn't simply been ignored, wouldn't you?

You could never guarantee anyone's security 100% ever, anywhere. Ok then shall I rephrase. They should not put in an enivronment that is currently the subject of a conflict, as was mentioned in the BBC article. Well, they were driving to Angola from their training camp in Congo-Brazzaville, through a conflict-ridden exclave of Angola. Whose fault was that? Say, there was a tournament in Scotland, and a team bus travelling from their training ground in the Republic of Ireland got attacked by terrorists in conflict-ridden Northern Ireland. Would that be a reason to cancel any tournament held in Europe? games are being held in that conflict ridden region i believe whos fault is that? They are? That detail escaped me. I thought they were just passing through. Angola's fault, then, I suppose. OTOH, teams had been told by the CAF to fly, not travel overland -- a stipulation that the Togo team ignored. They weren't told to fly, the CAF merely "expected" them to fly. Oh yeah? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article6981351.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/08/togo-football-team-ambushed-angola

You could never guarantee anyone's security 100% ever, anywhere. Ok then shall I rephrase. They should not put in an enivronment that is currently the subject of a conflict, as was mentioned in the BBC article. Well, they were driving to Angola from their training camp in Congo-Brazzaville, through a conflict-ridden exclave of Angola. Whose fault was that? Say, there was a tournament in Scotland, and a team bus travelling from their training ground in the Republic of Ireland got attacked by terrorists in conflict-ridden Northern Ireland. Would that be a reason to cancel any tournament held in Europe? games are being held in that conflict ridden region i believe whos fault is that? They are? That detail escaped me. I thought they were just passing through. Angola's fault, then, I suppose. OTOH, teams had been told by the CAF to fly, not travel overland -- a stipulation that the Togo team ignored.

You could never guarantee anyone's security 100% ever, anywhere. Ok then shall I rephrase. They should not put in an enivronment that is currently the subject of a conflict, as was mentioned in the BBC article. Well, they were driving to Angola from their training camp in Congo-Brazzaville, through a conflict-ridden exclave of Angola. Whose fault was that? Say, there was a tournament in Scotland, and a team bus travelling from their training ground in the Republic of Ireland got attacked by terrorists in conflict-ridden Northern Ireland. Would that be a reason to cancel any tournament held in Europe?

You could never guarantee anyone's security 100% ever, anywhere.

They may well be considering pulling out, but I doubt they will. In fact put your house on them taking a full part. It's the money you see. How fucking wonderful are SSN who've gave us the run down on every PREMIER LEAGFUE player in the tournement - as if no fucker else is important. Complete twats what they are. That's always the way, though, isn't it? "700 people die in earthquake, including 2 Britons"

Yes if does well there he could get a job at...Boro. What's the holdup here? stupid if they wont pay 3m for a manager when they paid 4.5m for Zat Knight. Or Villa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jan/05/sir-alex-ferguson-manchester-united

What features do they all have in common that makes think of them as "identikit"?

Meanwhile he's both got to fight relegation AND transform Bolton into a passing side.

I feel a bit sorry for Burnley.

The kind of numpty who moans about the former regime being "ousted" when in reality they sold the club to Ashley as quickly as possible, took the money, and ran to the bank, laughing. To be fair Fat Freddie was in hospital when it all went down and by the time he launched his own little salvage mission it was too late. Still hardly ousted by Ashley, was he? If anyone "ousted" Shepherd, it was Sir John Hall. Is this supposed to be news? I haven't moaned about Shepherd being ousted, as you call it. I've been well aware of what happened since it happened and I've already blamed SJH. I'm surprised it took you so long to catch on. Then again, maybe not... Err...yes? SJH sold his shares to Ashley and that kicked off the takeover. What's the news about that, or is this your feeble attempt at trying to make out you weren't in support of it, believing 4th, 3rd and 5th in the PL was rubbish? Whatever must you "think" now... OK chum, feel free to contradict yourself while calling everyone else stupid. Just don't be surprised if some think the one with his head up his arse is you. What's the view like in there?

The kind of numpty who moans about the former regime being "ousted" when in reality they sold the club to Ashley as quickly as possible, took the money, and ran to the bank, laughing. To be fair Fat Freddie was in hospital when it all went down and by the time he launched his own little salvage mission it was too late. Still hardly ousted by Ashley, was he? If anyone "ousted" Shepherd, it was Sir John Hall. Is this supposed to be news? I haven't moaned about Shepherd being ousted, as you call it. I've been well aware of what happened since it happened and I've already blamed SJH. I'm surprised it took you so long to catch on. Then again, maybe not...

The kind of numpty who moans about the former regime being "ousted" when in reality they sold the club to Ashley as quickly as possible, took the money, and ran to the bank, laughing. To be fair Fat Freddie was in hospital when it all went down and by the time he launched his own little salvage mission it was too late. Still hardly ousted by Ashley, was he? If anyone "ousted" Shepherd, it was Sir John Hall. Only someone with their head stuck well up their arse wouldn't know that. My point precisely.

The kind of numpty who moans about the former regime being "ousted" when in reality they sold the club to Ashley as quickly as possible, took the money, and ran to the bank, laughing. To be fair Fat Freddie was in hospital when it all went down and by the time he launched his own little salvage mission it was too late. Still hardly ousted by Ashley, was he? If anyone "ousted" Shepherd, it was Sir John Hall.

The kind of numpty who moans about the former regime being "ousted" when in reality they sold the club to Ashley as quickly as possible, took the money, and ran to the bank, laughing.

To do that you'd have to write something worth reading.

I would have more faith in Shearer than Hughton. Not saying much, like.